BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

1,102 results for “disallowance”+ Section 147clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,804Delhi2,340Chennai1,102Bangalore866Kolkata722Ahmedabad602Jaipur427Hyderabad394Pune330Surat234Chandigarh223Indore187Rajkot173Raipur173Cochin146Visakhapatnam121Nagpur100Lucknow89Amritsar86Panaji63Guwahati55Agra53Allahabad53Jodhpur45Cuttack45Patna45Karnataka26Calcutta23Ranchi22SC20Jabalpur17Dehradun15Punjab & Haryana8Telangana6Kerala4Gauhati2Rajasthan2Varanasi2Orissa2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 148133Section 147115Section 143(3)112Addition to Income65Disallowance50Reopening of Assessment37Reassessment33Section 40A(3)30Limitation/Time-bar26Section 14A

SIVAKUMARAN PUGAZHENDHI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT,, CHENNAI-4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, The Principal Commissioner 70 Raja Agraharam Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Poonamalle, Chennai-4. Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

147 and an order of reassessment was passed by which the claim under Section 72A came to be disallowed. The submission

Showing 1–20 of 1,102 · Page 1 of 56

...
25
Section 13220
Deduction20

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT LTU-II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

disallowed. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs.23,00,64,000/- has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 which is the subject matter of the provision of section 147

THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO(E), WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1372/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. T.V.Muthu AbiramiFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 80G

section 147 of the Act, and therefore quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act holding it Act, and therefore quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act holding it Act, and therefore quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act holding it to be bad in law. 13. From the aforesaid understanding of law governing

THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. T.V.Muthu AbiramiFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 80G

section 147 of the Act, and therefore quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act holding it Act, and therefore quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act holding it Act, and therefore quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act holding it to be bad in law. 13. From the aforesaid understanding of law governing

ADHI KUMARA GURU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-22(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, Advocate for Mr.G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘ACT’ in short] [‘ACT’ in short], for the Assessment Year 2014 Assessment Year 2014-15, was confirmed. 2. Briefly stated, the stated, the assessee is an individual who filed his Return is an individual who filed his Return of Income for the relevant assessment year on 19.02.2015. During of Income

M/S. SHRIRAM CONSTRUCTION FINANCE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 317/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.317/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shriram Construction Finance, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Income Tax, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafs2597N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.343/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Construction Income Tax, Finance, Mookambika Complex, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 26.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

section 147 of the Act against the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act at 17.58% of the actual

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CONSTRUCTION FINANCE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 343/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.317/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shriram Construction Finance, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Income Tax, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafs2597N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.343/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Construction Income Tax, Finance, Mookambika Complex, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 26.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

section 147 of the Act against the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act at 17.58% of the actual

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. KAMATCHIPURAM VELLINGIRI JAYARAMAN, COIMBATORE

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed, where as the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2777/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. D.Komali Krishna, CITFor Respondent: Mr.Venkatswami, ITP &
Section 147Section 148

147 to verify the source of the immovable property purchased by him to the tune of Rs.39,42,000/- . The AO issued notice u/s 148 to the assessee on 27.03.2017. In response to the notice 148, the assessee filed return of income on 13.12.2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 0/-. In response to notice under C.O.No.27/Chny/2025 section

PRINCE GOLD & DIAMONDS INDIA P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 427/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.427 & 428/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Prince Gold & Diamonds India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P. Ltd., 3, Nana Street, T. Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [Pan: Aaecp1891R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate Department By : Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 28.06.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 31.08.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Besides Challenging Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], The Assessee Has Also Disputed The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Purchase On Merits In Both The Assessment Years Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], the assessee has also disputed the confirmation of disallowance of purchase

PRINCE GOLD & DIAMONDS INDIA P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 428/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.427 & 428/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Prince Gold & Diamonds India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P. Ltd., 3, Nana Street, T. Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [Pan: Aaecp1891R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate Department By : Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 28.06.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 31.08.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Besides Challenging Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], The Assessee Has Also Disputed The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Purchase On Merits In Both The Assessment Years Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], the assessee has also disputed the confirmation of disallowance of purchase

DCIT,CC-2(1), CHENNAI vs. M/S.EQUITAS HOLDINGS PVT. LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 867/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 147 of the Act. In response to above notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee requested for reasons for reopening of assessment, which was communicated to the assessee by AO vide letter dated 12.07.2017. The AO in his reassessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 05.12.2017 reproduced the reasons but the assessee filed copy

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S EQITASHOLFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 866/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 147 of the Act. In response to above notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee requested for reasons for reopening of assessment, which was communicated to the assessee by AO vide letter dated 12.07.2017. The AO in his reassessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 05.12.2017 reproduced the reasons but the assessee filed copy

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPRUAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 856/CHNY/2020[202-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance in the original assessment proceedings to overcome the hurdle provided in terms of 1st proviso to Section 147, (i.e. failure

THE CUDDALORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD.,CUDDALORE vs. DCIT CUDDALORE CIRCLE, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2645/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance in the original assessment proceedings to overcome the hurdle provided in terms of 1st proviso to Section 147, (i.e. failure

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 855/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance in the original assessment proceedings to overcome the hurdle provided in terms of 1st proviso to Section 147, (i.e. failure

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 858/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance in the original assessment proceedings to overcome the hurdle provided in terms of 1st proviso to Section 147, (i.e. failure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, CUDDALLORE vs. M/S VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 981/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance in the original assessment proceedings to overcome the hurdle provided in terms of 1st proviso to Section 147, (i.e. failure

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERTATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 854/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance in the original assessment proceedings to overcome the hurdle provided in terms of 1st proviso to Section 147, (i.e. failure

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-II,, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 857/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance in the original assessment proceedings to overcome the hurdle provided in terms of 1st proviso to Section 147, (i.e. failure

M/S RATNA CAFE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 9, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1509/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

section 147 of the Act was completely overlooked while sustaining the validity of the re-assessment. 6. 7. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the distinction between accounting for book purposes pertaining to incurring of expenses for kitchen equipments and the claim made for full deduction for income tax purposes was fully disclosed/captured and ought to have appreciated that